This forms the second of a series of ‘More Wrong?’ posts, written to stress-test the two core tenets of the LW tribe’s credo – rationality is the best path to truth, and belief in God is irrational. Whilst the former is ‘official policy,’ the latter represents a widely held position amongst a high proportion of users.
But first, it is necessary to clarify some definitions to avoid talking at cross-purposes. Firstly, we should define what is actually meant in this series when speaking of God. The term is used according to the OED definition, of God as “the creator and ruler of the universe; the supreme being.” The notion of supreme being definitely does not have to take the form of an old, bearded man on a cloud; a trope that tends to obfuscate more subtle conceptions. Rather, we might say that in essence to believe in God is to assert that reality is the expression, or creation of a higher form of consciousness, or mind, or according to Ralph Cudworth’s original definition, a theist is someone who affirms that " a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind, existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other things"[1]. This notion lies at the core of almost all religions, whether invoked by way of a transcendent spirit, an immanent world soul, or some combination of both. Indeed, it even extend to non-theistic systems of religion, such as Buddhism, which also recognises the centrality of this idea - “the whole visible Universe… symbolizes the One Mind” [2, p. 230]. The difference between theism and non-theism, in this instance, is essentially related to the possibility of forming a personal relationship with this notion of mind. But both positions are denied outright by rationalistic atheism - mind is instantiated by material reality, not vice-versa.
We must also be careful to distinguish between religion and the concept of God. All too frequently commentators argue for the non-existence of God based on the shortcomings of religion. This might be termed the ‘exam-room blunder’ – we neglect to address the main question. It is easy to pick holes in religious dogma and deride aspects of belief or ritual, which seem archaic, misguided, or mistaken. But it is quite another thing to engage with the deeper metaphysical issues that concern the true nature of reality, and how our conduct in life relates practically to these questions.
Now the housekeeping is out of the way, we are in a position to play ‘divinity’s advocate,’ and question the notion that all theological conceptions of God are irrational. We live in a universe, which is unbelievably well-ordered; a fact that has historically been associated with the notion of divinity. From ancient Greece through to the modern day this order has been the bedrock of many faiths. Indeed, for centuries this sense of reverence also informed the scientific worldview. As Einstein remarked - “the basis of all scientific work is the conviction that the world is an ordered and comprehensive entity, which is a religious sentiment. My religious feeling is a humble amazement at the order revealed in the small patch of reality to which our feeble intelligence is equal”[3, p. 98]
But by the middle of the twentieth-century, the scientific consensus had started to shift; following on from the success of neo-Darwinism in the biological sciences, the universe also came to be regarded as the result of happenstance. However, as our understanding of cosmology further increased it became apparent that something was missing - the universe could only exist in its current form if the underlying laws of physics had been ‘fine-tuned’ to a ludicrous degree. For instance, the cosmological constant was required to be tuned to a precision of 120 decimal places - or one part in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. If it were not so precise then physical theory said that our universe would rapidly collapse, or undergo runaway expansion. The physicist Leonard Susskind described how the scientific community was shaken by this discovery - “physicists did not want to accept the idea that the laws of nature might be controlled by the benevolence of nature. There should be no reason why the luck should just have it that we can exist. It’s a stretch, it’s much too far to stretch”[4]
Whilst the precision of the cosmological constant was enough to give a committed rationalist pause to reflect, there are a whole slew of other extraordinary ‘coincidences.’ One example, with a special relevance for life, is the way that carbon and oxygen’s atomic nuclei possess exactly the right resonances that allow an abundance of both to form in stars. If they were ‘tuned’ only slightly differently, we would have ended up with universe containing only carbon, or only oxygen. This discovery was so extraordinary that Fred Hoyle - the physicist who made it - suggested that “a commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics”[5, p. 16]
For Hoyle understood that without sufficient quantities of oxygen, carbon and hydrogen it is extremely difficult to envisage how life might evolve. It has become increasingly apparent to biochemists and astrobiologists that compounds of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon have very specific properties that seem especially well-suited for life. More remarkable still, these properties can be highly anomalous. Water in its liquid state seems absolutely essential for biological life; we know of no lifeform that exists without it. Yet, liquid water is entirely different from other liquids, having seventy-five separate anomalous properties. Many of these are critical for biochemistry - such as its ability to act as a near-universal solvent. When considering the basic theoretical requirements of life – including hypothetical forms of extraterrestrial life - water seems uniquely life-favouring; other compounds simply do not come close to rivalling it.
Drilling into the reason for water's range of atypical behaviours throws up another 'coincidence.' Its hydrogen bonding - the weak attraction that occurs between the polar ends of H2O molecules - also seems to have been fine-tuned. Its strength falls right in the middle of the theoretical sweet-spot - “water’s hydrogen bond strength is poised centrally within a narrow window of its suitability for life.”
This constellation of facts seem so remarkable that those who have studied the chemistry in detail, often conclude that the cosmos exhibits an unreasonable fitness for life. As the eminent scientist, Lawrence Henderson, noted -
There is, in truth, not one chance in countless millions of millions that the many unique properties of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, and especially of their stable compounds water and carbonic acid… should simultaneously occur in the three elements otherwise through the operation of a natural law which somehow connects them together… These are no mere accidents. [6, p. 276]
Such an accumulated weight of evidence deserves our close attention. The existence of our universe has been shown to require a mind-boggling precise convergence of ‘coincidences,’ and the odds only get slimmer when we take into consideration its suitability for life. Therefore, we can rationally conclude that the notion that our universe - as a standalone phenomenon - is the result of chance alone is simply untenable. We require an additional explanatory factor.
[1] R. Cudworth, The True Intellectual System of the Universe, vol. 1, New York: Gould & Newman, 1837
[2] Padma-Sambhava, The Tibetan Book of Great Liberation, London: Oxford University Press, 1954.
[3] A. Einstein, Einstein on Cosmic Religion, New York: Dover Publications, 2009.
[4] L. Susskind, Interviewee, What We Still Don't Know - Part 3. [Interview]. 2004.
[5] F. Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 20, September 1982.
[6] L. J. Henderson, The Fitness of the Environment, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1927.
This forms the second of a series of ‘More Wrong?’ posts, written to stress-test the two core tenets of the LW tribe’s credo – rationality is the best path to truth, and belief in God is irrational. Whilst the former is ‘official policy,’ the latter represents a widely held position amongst a high proportion of users.
But first, it is necessary to clarify some definitions to avoid talking at cross-purposes. Firstly, we should define what is actually meant in this series when speaking of God. The term is used according to the OED definition, of God as “the creator and ruler of the universe; the supreme being.” The notion of supreme being definitely does not have to take the form of an old, bearded man on a cloud; a trope that tends to obfuscate more subtle conceptions. Rather, we might say that in essence to believe in God is to assert that reality is the expression, or creation of a higher form of consciousness, or mind, or according to Ralph Cudworth’s original definition, a theist is someone who affirms that " a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind, existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other things"[1]. This notion lies at the core of almost all religions, whether invoked by way of a transcendent spirit, an immanent world soul, or some combination of both. Indeed, it even extend to non-theistic systems of religion, such as Buddhism, which also recognises the centrality of this idea - “the whole visible Universe… symbolizes the One Mind” [2, p. 230]. The difference between theism and non-theism, in this instance, is essentially related to the possibility of forming a personal relationship with this notion of mind. But both positions are denied outright by rationalistic atheism - mind is instantiated by material reality, not vice-versa.
We must also be careful to distinguish between religion and the concept of God. All too frequently commentators argue for the non-existence of God based on the shortcomings of religion. This might be termed the ‘exam-room blunder’ – we neglect to address the main question. It is easy to pick holes in religious dogma and deride aspects of belief or ritual, which seem archaic, misguided, or mistaken. But it is quite another thing to engage with the deeper metaphysical issues that concern the true nature of reality, and how our conduct in life relates practically to these questions.
Now the housekeeping is out of the way, we are in a position to play ‘divinity’s advocate,’ and question the notion that all theological conceptions of God are irrational. We live in a universe, which is unbelievably well-ordered; a fact that has historically been associated with the notion of divinity. From ancient Greece through to the modern day this order has been the bedrock of many faiths. Indeed, for centuries this sense of reverence also informed the scientific worldview. As Einstein remarked - “the basis of all scientific work is the conviction that the world is an ordered and comprehensive entity, which is a religious sentiment. My religious feeling is a humble amazement at the order revealed in the small patch of reality to which our feeble intelligence is equal”[3, p. 98]
But by the middle of the twentieth-century, the scientific consensus had started to shift; following on from the success of neo-Darwinism in the biological sciences, the universe also came to be regarded as the result of happenstance. However, as our understanding of cosmology further increased it became apparent that something was missing - the universe could only exist in its current form if the underlying laws of physics had been ‘fine-tuned’ to a ludicrous degree. For instance, the cosmological constant was required to be tuned to a precision of 120 decimal places - or one part in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. If it were not so precise then physical theory said that our universe would rapidly collapse, or undergo runaway expansion. The physicist Leonard Susskind described how the scientific community was shaken by this discovery - “physicists did not want to accept the idea that the laws of nature might be controlled by the benevolence of nature. There should be no reason why the luck should just have it that we can exist. It’s a stretch, it’s much too far to stretch”[4]
Whilst the precision of the cosmological constant was enough to give a committed rationalist pause to reflect, there are a whole slew of other extraordinary ‘coincidences.’ One example, with a special relevance for life, is the way that carbon and oxygen’s atomic nuclei possess exactly the right resonances that allow an abundance of both to form in stars. If they were ‘tuned’ only slightly differently, we would have ended up with universe containing only carbon, or only oxygen. This discovery was so extraordinary that Fred Hoyle - the physicist who made it - suggested that “a commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics”[5, p. 16]
For Hoyle understood that without sufficient quantities of oxygen, carbon and hydrogen it is extremely difficult to envisage how life might evolve. It has become increasingly apparent to biochemists and astrobiologists that compounds of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon have very specific properties that seem especially well-suited for life. More remarkable still, these properties can be highly anomalous. Water in its liquid state seems absolutely essential for biological life; we know of no lifeform that exists without it. Yet, liquid water is entirely different from other liquids, having seventy-five separate anomalous properties. Many of these are critical for biochemistry - such as its ability to act as a near-universal solvent. When considering the basic theoretical requirements of life – including hypothetical forms of extraterrestrial life - water seems uniquely life-favouring; other compounds simply do not come close to rivalling it.
Drilling into the reason for water's range of atypical behaviours throws up another 'coincidence.' Its hydrogen bonding - the weak attraction that occurs between the polar ends of H2O molecules - also seems to have been fine-tuned. Its strength falls right in the middle of the theoretical sweet-spot - “water’s hydrogen bond strength is poised centrally within a narrow window of its suitability for life.”
This constellation of facts seem so remarkable that those who have studied the chemistry in detail, often conclude that the cosmos exhibits an unreasonable fitness for life. As the eminent scientist, Lawrence Henderson, noted -
Such an accumulated weight of evidence deserves our close attention. The existence of our universe has been shown to require a mind-boggling precise convergence of ‘coincidences,’ and the odds only get slimmer when we take into consideration its suitability for life. Therefore, we can rationally conclude that the notion that our universe - as a standalone phenomenon - is the result of chance alone is simply untenable. We require an additional explanatory factor.
[1] R. Cudworth, The True Intellectual System of the Universe, vol. 1, New York: Gould & Newman, 1837
[2] Padma-Sambhava, The Tibetan Book of Great Liberation, London: Oxford University Press, 1954.
[3] A. Einstein, Einstein on Cosmic Religion, New York: Dover Publications, 2009.
[4] L. Susskind, Interviewee, What We Still Don't Know - Part 3. [Interview]. 2004.
[5] F. Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 20, September 1982.
[6] L. J. Henderson, The Fitness of the Environment, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1927.